The "A" Word
The "A" word is abortion. The following article cuts through much of the BS associated with the abortion fight.
Constitution holds the answer to abortion
By Mark Davis
I'm prepared to make a deal with Supreme Court nominee John Roberts. I don't care whether he is for or against abortion rights, and I don't want him to care where I stand on that spectrum.
Let's all join that pact. None of us will agonize over whether President Bush's nominee to the Supreme Court is pleased or displeased with the availability of abortion. In return, we ask him not to moisten his finger and test the winds of public opinion on the issue.
What will this achieve? It will clear the air of irrelevancies and allow us all to focus on the only thing that matters in a judge's consideration of the right to abortion: Is it in the Constitution?
The answer to that question is unaffected by the passions of abortion-rights advocates and opponents. If the nation were to unanimously rise up one day as either 100 percent for or against abortion rights, that would not change one word of the Constitution.
And there is not one word of the Constitution that bestows a blanket federal right to terminate a life in the womb. Judge Roberts was right in 1990 when he said Roe vs. Wade was improperly decided.
As such, it should be overturned, not because he or anyone wants less abortion in America, but because the Supreme Court should not make stuff up, and when it does, it should be corrected.
Judge Roberts is Catholic and, by all accounts, a conservative. Neither of those should be the reason he votes to overturn Roe. It should be because objectively, factually, there is no right to abortion in the Constitution.
Clarity on this matter seems impossible lately, and there is no reason for optimism. Abortion-rights advocates are already scribbling storyboards for the ad campaigns that will portray women dying from botched back-alley abortions because Judge Roberts reached the high court.
Can no one grasp the obvious? The Supreme Court cannot ban abortion. It cannot ban anything. It is legislatures that outlaw things, and the Supreme Court merely rules whether they violate the Constitution by doing so.
The 10th Amendment is crystal clear. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The moment Roe swirls down the drain, abortion will remain legal in every state that wishes to keep it. I don't believe any state would forbid it outright. America wants less abortion, but I'd bet the reddest of red states would stop short of a complete abortion ban.
I dream of confirmation hearings in which this can be discussed honestly and civilly. I have no problem with senators asking Judge Roberts his view on Roe vs. Wade, and I would hope he would answer with candor.
Like I said, I'm dreaming. I still remember the Clarence Thomas hearings in 1991, when he told senators he had never had a casual conversation about abortion. I'm a big fan of Justice Thomas, but that was a knee-slapper for the ages.
Will Judge Roberts have to play the same game? He might, because the question will come. It should come. I know future abortion cases will come before the court, and he can use that as a basis for declining to answer, but there is simply nothing wrong with someone asking him very plainly whether he believes the Constitution contains a right to abortion.
And there is certainly nothing wrong with him replying very plainly that it does not.
Constitution holds the answer to abortion
By Mark Davis
I'm prepared to make a deal with Supreme Court nominee John Roberts. I don't care whether he is for or against abortion rights, and I don't want him to care where I stand on that spectrum.
Let's all join that pact. None of us will agonize over whether President Bush's nominee to the Supreme Court is pleased or displeased with the availability of abortion. In return, we ask him not to moisten his finger and test the winds of public opinion on the issue.
What will this achieve? It will clear the air of irrelevancies and allow us all to focus on the only thing that matters in a judge's consideration of the right to abortion: Is it in the Constitution?
The answer to that question is unaffected by the passions of abortion-rights advocates and opponents. If the nation were to unanimously rise up one day as either 100 percent for or against abortion rights, that would not change one word of the Constitution.
And there is not one word of the Constitution that bestows a blanket federal right to terminate a life in the womb. Judge Roberts was right in 1990 when he said Roe vs. Wade was improperly decided.
As such, it should be overturned, not because he or anyone wants less abortion in America, but because the Supreme Court should not make stuff up, and when it does, it should be corrected.
Judge Roberts is Catholic and, by all accounts, a conservative. Neither of those should be the reason he votes to overturn Roe. It should be because objectively, factually, there is no right to abortion in the Constitution.
Clarity on this matter seems impossible lately, and there is no reason for optimism. Abortion-rights advocates are already scribbling storyboards for the ad campaigns that will portray women dying from botched back-alley abortions because Judge Roberts reached the high court.
Can no one grasp the obvious? The Supreme Court cannot ban abortion. It cannot ban anything. It is legislatures that outlaw things, and the Supreme Court merely rules whether they violate the Constitution by doing so.
The 10th Amendment is crystal clear. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The moment Roe swirls down the drain, abortion will remain legal in every state that wishes to keep it. I don't believe any state would forbid it outright. America wants less abortion, but I'd bet the reddest of red states would stop short of a complete abortion ban.
I dream of confirmation hearings in which this can be discussed honestly and civilly. I have no problem with senators asking Judge Roberts his view on Roe vs. Wade, and I would hope he would answer with candor.
Like I said, I'm dreaming. I still remember the Clarence Thomas hearings in 1991, when he told senators he had never had a casual conversation about abortion. I'm a big fan of Justice Thomas, but that was a knee-slapper for the ages.
Will Judge Roberts have to play the same game? He might, because the question will come. It should come. I know future abortion cases will come before the court, and he can use that as a basis for declining to answer, but there is simply nothing wrong with someone asking him very plainly whether he believes the Constitution contains a right to abortion.
And there is certainly nothing wrong with him replying very plainly that it does not.
posted by Rope Burns at 7/25/2005 03:05:00 AM
<< Home